That’s all fine and well. But I am just not convinced that the lamppost outside my bedroom window is going to be reborn as a Buddha one day. Perhaps if I am a Buddha one day, I will see that lamppost, and see it pristine and wonderful, regardless of its condition and keeping, but even then, is it going to teach me Dharma?
I suppose if the Buddha can hand a flower to Mahākāśyapa as a dharma teaching, and have Mahākāśyapa receiving that teaching, through nothing more than the transmission of a flower, than the reality around us, in its way, I suppose, ‘teaches’ us about itself in the most direct way possible via our experiencing of it.
Even then, though, in the story of Mahākāśyapa & the flower, the flower is significant because the Buddha gave it to him. If someone else had given Mahākāśyapa that flower, I don’t think the story would have gained prominence as an origin narrative for Zen.
The quote above is interesting. Since there is no self there is no differentiation between a “person” and a rock. Both are lacking. I’m not convinced entirely, but it is interesting, and it is something I had considered before. I made a post about Buddhism and Robots that dealt with similar subject matter, actually, a while ago. Funny enough as it is with this popping up in the Dogen excerpts linked to.